K.C.Journey Fan wrote:Well, if you go by Clintons enviromental study, very little since it's under ground, not on a train going through towns that can derail and explode, not endangering ANY water sources, and NEXT TO SEVERAL pipelines that already exist. AGAIN, YOU'RE a liar.

How so? I present a list of pipeline incidents over the past 17 years. Did I suggest that every one of them applied to this scenario?

"It's underground." Oil leaking into an underground water shed IS endangering water sources!

I know people find this amusing, but this is a program that started long before Obama. It's been in please for a long time and is constantly being updated. I posted something about this a long time ago.

K.C.Journey Fan wrote:Well, if you go by Clintons enviromental study, very little since it's under ground, not on a train going through towns that can derail and explode, not endangering ANY water sources, and NEXT TO SEVERAL pipelines that already exist. AGAIN, YOU'RE a liar.

And if you look back in history where Hillary was influential in the uranium deal with Russia was linked to money flowing into The Clinton Foundation.

"Had to issue a warning already?" Horse feathers. One SNL writer (NOT a reporter) Tweeted something and got suspended over it. What "reporter" has said anything negative about the little..."angel?" By the way, Drump, who tweets within 10 minutes about Baldwin or Streep, said NOTHING about the SNL writer. Guess he cares more about people going after him than his children based on his radio silence.

No matter how you slice it or the source, the attack on a 10yr child who in no way is responsible for what these people are anrgy about is disgusting and reprehensible.

If they want that pipeline to happen, it can run through Bismarck as originally intended — you know, until its residents OBJECTED, and then the pipeline was shifted to Standing Rock. But I guess it's okay to threaten the tribe's water supply, right?

Since the land is owned by the tribe and protected by a treaty, it would be an act of war to force the tribe to accept the US taking over the land for the pipeline. Not that the US government doesn't have a history of breaking treaties with native Americans, and it's like Trump doesn't have a history of lying.

Still, when all is said and done I think we owe those women who took to the streets across the world in their various pod groups a massive favour. They have reminded us what a Hillary presidency would have looked like every single day for at least four years. And they have swept away any reservations we may have had about the absolute necessity of having voted for Donald Trump.

Sorry, but I have a feeling that you are going to see protests of some sort on the news for the entirety of Trump the lying Tyrant's presidency. He's earned it.

K.C.Journey Fan wrote:Bill O'Riley laid out the details for the "Womens March" tonight. It was organized by staff from Clinton, Sanders, and Obama. There were 50 different groups, paid 90 million dollars by guess who? George Soros.

And, they faked the moon landing and blew up the twin towers. Wow, amazing what naive Trump followers believe.

Boomchild wrote:So it was mentioned at the White House Press Conference that they are going to allow media outlets to participate via Skype so that more can participate from around the globe. Let's hope that this will include some alternative media outlets instead of the lame stream media ones.

Of course they are going to do this.....Trump can't handle people questioning his "alternate facts". It's all to drown out the truth, to make lies an acceptable alternative. It's about rewriting history that he doesn't like, like HIS feud with the intelligence community being something the press invented. It's about Tweets vanishing about how much carbon is in the atmosphere. It's about silencing the EPA and other agency so they do not state any facts that contradict his alternative reality that he wants you all to buy into.

Orwell would be proud. So would Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, and Putin. Reread 1984, that is the type of world you are supporting when you support Trump.

verslibre wrote:You know, when I see a person pepper his/her posts with "idiot," "stupid," "nimrod," "asshole," "dumbass," "snowflake" (that one cracks me up, because it used to mean something different, but it's now the Alt-Right's pejorative of choice), and other insults over and over, it suggests that that person doesn't have a lot to work with. Why can't you just have a discussion with him without berating him?

When a five pound hand sledge can't be sent through a person's readily available forehead, using such expressions as "idiot," "stupid," "nimrod," "asshole," "dumbass," "snowflake" etc. may suffice.

Not really. When that is ALL you can do, it is usually the writers reflection of how they view themselves. In your case, and KC's, you very rarely have any cohesive argument...so that is all you have to resort to.

Boomchild wrote:I believe there are enough credible scientists that question man's impact on the climate.

This is a misdirection in many, many ways. You can be a scientist and have NO CLUE about the science behind climate change. Even somebody like a meteorologist could be clueless. Then there are people that the deniers count as 'scientists' that are clearly not. For example, is a computer scientist qualified to comment? I don't think so.

Those who are qualified, who have studied the evidence - they know, and it IS real.

To clarify, I'm not stating that changes aren't occurring. I question the claims of our impact on it.

Oh, stop it. The Tweet that was deleted, that there is more carbon in our atmosphere now that any time in the past 650,000yrs. That is a simple FACT. It is also a FACT that carbon released from fossil fuels is a different isotope of carbon than is released from other natural ways (volcano's, for example).

So, you are either ignorant, or are in denial.

If your going to invest in things that are supposed to help with it you need to do it wisely. All I've seen from the former administration is investment of taxpayer dollars into "green energy" companies that have failed.

So, you believe that Tesla is a failed company and not a good investment? Please, you are being foolish and putting too much credit into facts fed to you by those who want you to believe specific things. "Cash for clunkers" was a good idea. Tax breaks for purchasing electric or hybrid cars is a good idea. Raising emission standards is a good idea. Obama was doing a LOT of the right things. I would have liked to see government contracts for developing alternative fuel vehicles for the military....that may have pushed technology to another level.

trekman wrote:No one asked you to come back did they? If were all Idiots, why would you come back ? I doubt anyone here missed you.

I don't care about any of that. It's not a popularity contest for me.

The bottom line is the President is no ROUTINELY *LYING* to the American People.

This isn't like Obama saying "You can keep your plan...", etc, with Obamacare. IMO, he truly believed that when he said it. That Obamacare would be an addition to what currently exists, not a replacement.

The difference is Trump is LYING about things from the PAST that are simple FACTS that are provable. He did not have the largest inauguration crowd ever. That is a FACT. White coverings were NOT used for the first time this year. That is a fact. Sending out his representative to LIE about this things is like Nixon saying "it's not a crime if the President does it." Trump may as well say, "it's not a lie if the President says it." It's authoritarian. It's unAmerican. It gets Presidents limited to one term, scandal ridden, or kicked out of office. Historically, that is what has happened in the past when our Presidents go down this path.

ALL Americans should be offended when our President blatantly LIES to us. We should be further offended when his surrogates make up bullshit terms like "alternate facts" to cover up his tendency to lie. But, some of you are so caught up in this left vs. right, Republican vs. Democrat crap that you can't see how dangerous it is to allow a President to slide by with this type of behavior.

To get those 30,000, they took anybody willing to sign up regardless of how qualified they were to be called a 'scientist', and regardless of how experienced they were in studying the climate.

Here is a site that describes the various peer reviewed papers that came up with the 97% number. The bottom line is that the more a person knows and understand how climate works, the more likely they are to believe in climate change and man is causing it.

A staggering 30,000 scientists have come forward confirming that man-made climate change is a hoax perpetuated by the elite in order to make money.

Debunking the “97 percent” lie

On top of those “inconvenient truths,” the White House’s assertion that 97 percent of scientists agree that global warming is real has been completely debunked. Several independently-researched examinations of the literature used to support the “97 percent” statement found that the conclusions were cherry-picked and misleading.

More objective surveys have revealed that there is a far greater diversity of opinion among scientists than the global warming crowd would like for you to believe.

And again I ask, what if you're wrong on the subject? It's like being in a boat on an unfamiliar body of water. Many say, "evidence indicates there's a waterfall ahead." Others say, "No, I don't believe that." You keep going back and forth on it and (let's just say) you suddenly realize there is a waterfall and you're too close to it and the current is too strong to turn back.

What happens if we cut back on greenhouse emissions and other factors that may contribute to global warming? Cleaner air and water for future generations. Man, how terrible.

Trump will get more done in his first hundred days, than Obama did in 8 years. He is proving that he's a mover and a shaker. I don't know when he sleeps. He rocks!

He's gonna be the hardest working president ever. You can just tell by his work ethic, which is, by the way, what got him to where he is. Yes he's made some bad lines, bad investments, fallen down a time or three, but the guy has been a champion, in the end. He's making deals everyday, even while some of us are sleeping. I want a guy like that fighting for us. President Trump is doing, or working on what he said he would do. He's proving his point; most politicians are all talk, no action. He won't fail the USA. Fail is not in his DNA. The man is a winner, so we shall win with him.

Since trade agreements was an issue during the election and now during the new Presidency, I came across an interesting tidbit. During the election when President Trump said that he would renegotiate NAFTA some balked and criticized him. Saying things such as NAFTA is\was good for America and that Canada and Mexico wouldn't agree to it. Now dial the clock back to Obama's first run for office. He went around the rust belt promising voters that he would do the very same thing, renegotiate it. But now that Trump is suggesting it's the wrong thing to do. BTW, Obama never intended to do what he promised those in the rust belt. He had his campaign staff contact the Canadian Prime Minister and assure him that Obama was not going to do anything to change the agreement.

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington

Fact Finder wrote:Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrumpI will be asking for a major investigation into VOTER FRAUD, including those registered to vote in two states, those who are illegal and....even, those registered to vote who are dead (and many for a long time). Depending on results, we will strengthen up voting procedures!

4:13 AM - 25 Jan 2017 4,070 RETWEETS17.2K LIKES

BOOM!

And that investigation, which will cost millions of dollars, will reveal that millions of illegal immigrants did not vote. Distraction and misdirection. Lap it up, Lemmings.

Last edited by UncleKG on Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

steveo777 wrote:Trump will get more done in his first hundred days, than Obama did in 8 years. He is proving that he's a mover and a shaker. I don't know when he sleeps. He rocks!

He's gonna be the hardest working president ever. You can just tell by his work ethic, which is, by the way, what got him to where he is. Yes he's made some bad lines, bad investments, fallen down a time or three, but the guy has been a champion, in the end. He's making deals everyday, even while some of us are sleeping. I want a guy like that fighting for us. President Trump is doing, or working on what he said he would do. He's proving his point; most politicians are all talk, no action. He won't fail the USA. Fail is not in his DNA. The man is a winner, so we shall win with him.

As long as you're cool with polluted air and drinking water, continued wasteful spending by the Pentagon (which will see an increased budget), a president who seems cool with using nukes and the possibility that your descendants will curse your name for ever voting for him, yeah, I guess you could see that as a "win."

President Donald Trump was expected to sign several executive orders restricting immigration on Wednesday, at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, according to several congressional aides and immigration experts briefed on the matter.

Trump's orders were expected to involve restricting access to the United States for refugees and some visa holders from Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, said the aides and experts, who asked not to be identified.

"For the full 1,000 miles, Trump’s 30-foot wall (with a 10-foot tunnel barrier) would cost $31.2 billion, according to the best estimate from Massachusetts Institute of Technology engineers—that is $31.2 million per mile. If he only built 500 miles, the cost would be a more manageable, but still shocking $15.1 billion. Two other estimates placed the construction cost of the wall in the $25 billion range. Again, these are upfront construction costs, not ongoing maintenance costs, which account for roughly half of all of the fence costs over a decade.

Donald Trump has been most insistent that Mexico will pay for the wall. He has promised a variety of ways of accomplishing this. The idea he raises most often is that Mexico can pay for the wall because it sells so much to U.S. consumers. “The wall is a fraction of the kind of money… that Mexico takes in from the United States,” he told CNN in April. “You’re talking about a trade deficit with Mexico of $58 billion.” In other words, if the Mexican government does not pay the $25 billion or more that it will take to build the wall, Trump will simply tax business with Mexico.

Of course, under this scheme, it is simply inaccurate to claim that “Mexico” will be paying for the wall since the $58 billion comes from U.S. consumers. If the United States imposes a tax on Mexican imports, then U.S. consumers will cover it. Marco Rubio told this to Trump during one of the presidential debates in January, explaining that the government “doesn’t pay the tariff—the buyer pays the tariff.” But obviously the lesson in economics failed to stick.

Trump has also proposed cutting off remittances of unauthorized immigrants to Mexico if the Mexican government refuses to cover the cost of the wall. Trump’s proposed regulatory method of doing this (claiming that cash wire transfers are actually bank accounts) is legally suspect, but even if it was legal, it would not cover the cost of the wall. Although Mexican immigrants remit $26 billion to their families in Mexico, this plan is fundamentally flawed for several reasons.

In total, these programs cost the average American $22.36 per year, while "housing subsidies like the mortgage interest deduction, which are disproportionately used by the wealthy, cost $296.29 per American."

Meanwhile, the Pentagon can't tell us how it spent $6 TRILLION, and he's going to up their budget. It boggles the mind.

Boomchild wrote:No matter how you slice it or the source, the attack on a 10yr child who in no way is responsible for what these people are anrgy about is disgusting and reprehensible.

Man, that'd be as bad as belittling a Vietnam POW for being captured, or suggesting the mother of a Gold Star family didn't speak because of her religion, or making a joke about a reporter "bleeding from everywhere." Spare me your hypocritical indignation.

"Among the regulations that (the head of [D]rump's EPA transition team) opposes are the Clean Air Act greenhouse gas regulations for new and existing coal and natural gas power plants; Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which regulates discharge of dredged or fill material into U.S. waters, including wetlands; and the Total Maximum Daily Load initiative to protect the Chesapeake Bay."

Yeah, based on those three articles alone, why would anyone be concerned? Are you sincerely that obtuse?